The temporary Leader of the Labour Party
The Herald editorial talks about how Phill Goff will be a caretaker or temporary caretaker for Labour.
The decision allows Labour no time to find a promising successor. In the absence of a new face, it will probably elect the capable Phil Goff to lead it for the time being. Mr Goff has many of the attributes of Helen Clark: wide ministerial experience, a good command of all issues, instinctive common sense and a sure political touch. And he is a more forceful public speaker than she is.
But he is not much younger than she is, and as a minister in the 1980s has been on the national scene for just as long. He can never give Labour the fresh image a party normally needs to recover from a long period in power. By the next election Mr Goff would be in much the same position as Bill English was in 2002. As a leading minister in a recently defeated Government, Mr English could not lead National back to office.
Actually a lot worse than Bill’s example. Bill entered Parliament during the 4th National Government and was Leader of the Opposition for the 5th Labour Government. Phil Goff entered Parliament during the 3rd National Government, served as a Minister in the 4th Labour Government, spent nine years in Opposition during the 4th National Government, nine years as a Minister in the 5th Labour Government, and now will become the fresh face of Labour during the 5th National Government hoping to lead a 6th Labour Government to power.
At the next election, Goff and King celebrate the 30th anniversary and 27th anniversary respectively of their first election to Parliament.
So I think Goff and King will struggle to be seen as long-term Leaders. In a way, that is a pity. Goff and King are amongst the more moderate Labour MPs (or have been to date) and should move Labour more towards the centre. They both are regarded as amongst the more competent Ministers also (even though King’s halo took a beating this year) and should be an effective team working together.
November 11th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Yep, great to see Labour reinventing itself.
BTW – cumulatively, we have paid for Helen Clark, Michael Cullen, Phil Goff and Annette King’s lifestyles for 105 years – no wonder the country is broke!!
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/11/labours-leadership-rejuvenation.html
November 11th, 2008 at 8:51 am
I remember circa 2003 in Cambodia, some young Kiwis I bumped into were interviewing Goff for some post grad TV/Media lark that had jacked up. They reckoned he was a good stick.
Goff must be sick of travel if he’s picked up a caretaker role and thats not a criticism just a comment cause I think Goff is a good stick too. He seems to be very astute strategically.
King, she’ll be the effective whip and logistic numero uno.
Labour have a vacuum of talent below, as we have seen recently post Mallard, Smarmy et al. Sucession planning failure I guess.
National really have a grand opportunity to do that labour trick of stacking local boards and quangos with right friendly people – I think that if John Key fails to appoint a minister in charge of domestic development to make sure this happens, with a budget and staff, then he is heading for a one term gummint.
So the moral of the chat is, dont let Goff outfox you locally.
November 11th, 2008 at 8:52 am
I think the statement made yesterday by someone that Labour’s New Leader hasn’t entered parliament yet is true. But that shouldn’t stop them getting re-elected, since the whole Lange/Palmer/Moore fiasco seemed not to hinder what they were up to at that time either. In that respect, it may not be impossible to have King stumbling and bumbling on the news everynight for at least one term. Overall, the lack of powerful leadership in Labour should nto be interpreted as an excuse for National to put it’s collective feet up and kick back.
What piece of work that Clark was: sucked the party dry like a mosquito and buggered off. Her and Cullen are probably off spawning the next Leader.
November 11th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Wasn’t King looking to retire during this term? I guess duty calls.
November 11th, 2008 at 9:09 am
I think that outside of the beltway, Goff and King will appear as new faces. While many will find the names and faces vaguely familiar, the relative lack of controversy surrounding them (Goff especially) has kept them out of public consciousness to a large degree. Nevertheless, having Cunliffe or someone as a high profile shadow treasurer would go some way toward creating a fresh looking aura to the new caucus – supplementing the ‘fresh’ leadership.
November 11th, 2008 at 9:21 am
after 3 years so might John Key.
November 11th, 2008 at 9:21 am
I’d really hope this doesn’t happen. If he were to stack anything with anything it should be with people who are fiercely independent – a bit like the Labour appointed AG pulling Labour up on breaking electoral funding laws. The easiest thing in the world would be to go as corrupt as Labour, even if it were “in a good cause” instead of feathering the party nest. But this is what Trotter rattled on about with his praise of leftwing corruption. The means must be clean, not a justification of the ends. The government must adhere to it’s own rules. National seem to be aware of the option to go corrupt with the arrangement of coalition agreements.
Look at the election result: almost half the country now view corruption on a large public scale as completely ok – they voted for the encumbents. Labour caused that attitude to be born, but unless that attitude is reversed and replaced by self control in the face of weakness, the corruption will only get worse and open our system up to total control by one party. Our system’s conventions have been badly damaged, they must be rebuilt. If we throw away the last vestige of honour that those conventions brought to our politicians, our democracy will follow shortly afterwards.
NZ began the turn away from corruption with the removal of the Clark regime, but now we’re in the apex and whether we crash and burn on the barrier or leave the corner clean and fast relies almost totally on the new government.
November 11th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Youve mistaken my terminology – right friendly people means people who are friendly and right.
Lets be real though – local changes and improvements will get National into gummint for a second term.
Arsing around with wholesale changes to the NZ political system won’t (besides ditching the EFA).
November 11th, 2008 at 9:38 am
The trouble with Labour’s appointments was that its cronies appointed to boards and the like were almost always activists, unionists and party supporters, who, by definition almost, hardly ever had any business experience. It looked bad. Think Mike Smith.
National can appoint its cronies without that problem. They enjoy support from a powerful lot of competent business people. Accordingly their appointments will at least look like merit selections rather than political appointments as rewards, whether they are or not.
… which is a good thing, and how it has generally been under past National governments.
November 11th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Expat: Key campaigned on de-politicising the public sector
November 11th, 2008 at 9:42 am
I am surprised that nobody has mentioned Darren Hughes in a leadership role for Labour. He is young, smart and very charismatic. Could be a fairly good option as hopefully he is not to tainted with the old school.
November 11th, 2008 at 9:45 am
I’m not sure people see Goff as old and tired. Many voters wouldn’t be that aware of him, and he still looks pretty fresh-faced.
The main problem for Labour is the total lack of anyone else, except, I suggest, Darren Hughes, who could be a leader down the track.
Pompous Shane and toxic Trevor would consign them to perpetual oblivion, and David Cunliffe also comes across as a bit smug.
Everyone talks of Andrew Little. He does seem to be a fair and intelligent person, but not charismatic.
Again, the sunny disposition of Hughes may do the trick when Key gives up the reins after a Holyoake-like four terms.
November 11th, 2008 at 9:52 am
I think Goff will be an effective Opposition leader and I wouldn’t be suprised to see him astound his critics and be a long term leader of Labour. King on the other hand is grating and could be an impediment to Labour’s image. I like GJ’s and John’s suggestion of Darren Hughes, he’s likeable and has a positive public presence through his Breakfast appearances. Above all he is young, and its time Labour showed the impressive younger politico’s in its ranks.
November 11th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Far too soon for Hughes – he’s only been on the teat for six years!!
Seriously though, I can see Hughes as a future Labour leader – in fifteen years time. At the age of thirty, he should get out of Parliament for at least six years, and go and work in the real world, and get some private sector experience. Then, and only then, he could come back with a much more rounded perspective on life and politics – who knows – he might even go over to the right side!
November 11th, 2008 at 10:07 am
The Herald’s belief that Clark should have stayed to lead Labour in 2011 is unbelievable! And it criticises Goff for not being a fresh face?!!
I think Sam and John Ansell are right that outside the beltway Goff will seem relatively fresh. And Blocker is right that he might surprise in the upside. He is certainly someone I respect.
That said, I think Cunliffe was smart to not want the job. Better to keep his powder dry. So long as National proves honest, moderate and reasonably competent (and I expect they will be at least this) they will probably be re-elected. So it is better for Cunliffe to let Goff lose 2011 and then take over.
But Goff’s assertion that the only reason Labour lost is because people just wanted a change is wrong. There were some damn good reasons why Labour lost (being too left-wing, being too nannyish, losing its moral compass), and until Labour faces up to those it is unlikely to win again.
November 11th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Im not talking about the public sector – Im talking about grass roots local politics, thats where labour have held power for 9 years.
National ignore that at their peril.
If you are serious about improving your patch of NZ get out and be counted.
November 11th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Sorry to disagree, expat, I know you mean well with your comment about Government appointments. But National has to lead a government of principles, principles, principles. Appointing any people who look like “cronies” to Government-controlled boards is not part of that scenario.
already exists a Government agency CCMAU (Crown Company Monitoring & Advisory Unit) that is well-equipped to propose capable candidates – with proven governance experience and suitable credentials – to undertake roles that arise. Under Clark’s administration, CCMAU’s professional purpose was seriously blunted by MPs’ nominations of political friends and supporters. If Key wants to reform this aspect of the public sector, he should commission and publish a report and recommendations for a more transparent process for his Government to receive nominations for and make appointments to boards and other entities controlled by the Crown.
I’m not naively suggesting complete hands-off neutrality on Government’s part – after all, Government has to take responsibility for the actions and omissions of its own appointees. But I am suggesting that, before anyone gets even close to the Cabinet Nominations Committee, he / she has been through a transparant process of vetting and confirmation by CCMAU for inclusion in a final selection shortlist. Then Government can be seen to make its choice from eminently qualified candidates, not from amongst Party hacks or donors.
November 11th, 2008 at 10:37 am
S.russell my greatest fear is the Dear Loser might come back to stir the shit. Once the shock of defeat has faded and she has become part of the great unwashed, like all of us, she might decide that anonymity does not become her. After nine years of being top dog I don’t think Dear Loser can live without the spotlight. She has being telling everyone for the last nine years what will be, now she has been tossed aside. She must be in deep shock, how sad never mind.
November 11th, 2008 at 10:39 am
DPF, I am unable to post comments on the thread “Herald on Helen”, nor, I suspect, any other thread from yesterday. And I think others may have the same problem given that comments have dried up comparatively early on those threads.
I want to say that THESE GUYS ARE 100% RIGHT, and there is hardly anything more important that needs to be realised about the last 9 years:
Owen McShane (437) Vote: Add rating 17 Subtract rating 0 Says:
November 10th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
“This editorial maintains the fiction that the Labour government under Clark presided over nine years of strong growth.
IT was actually faux growth. It was not based on increased productivity or innovation but was driven by consumer spending financed by borrowings against over valued property assets – which is why those outside the housing market gained nothing from it and left for Australia or became an underclass.
Once the housing bubble burst the growth ground to a halt and unemployment started to rise and we have been sliding into depression…..”
reid (1343) Vote: Add rating 10 Subtract rating 0 Says:
November 10th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Yep, let’s not be sentimental. The editorial mentions “finding a path of restraining free-market economics while overseeing strong growth”
a) the strong growth was NOT her doing………
“……….she did widen the target inflation band making it easy for her to spend our money while her supporters suffered most as inflation ate into their meagre income. Every other market reform enacted since 1984, she kept.
She gets a zero for increasing productivity (hospitals anyone?), a zero for reducing unemployment (that wasn’t her doing – it was the global economy, stupid) and a zero for positioning NZ to face this upcoming calamity.
Her profligacy for selfish reasons (to get herself re-elected) shot the golden goose. We could have had zero debt. We could have kept parity with Australia, we could have climbed the OECD. We didn’t, she failed, recognise it.”
reid (1343) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 0 Says:
November 10th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
“Yeah but what can those good measures be?
Just take inter-bank lending as an example. We’re a bit player in the financial markets and our banks need rollover finance from other economies. Those economies are all in the process of repatriating their savings. Our govt guarantee offers those investors nothing more than most other larger economies are offering and where there’s fear there’s often also paranoia. So despite the objective risk profile being low based on our reasonable fundamentals, the subjective risk is relatively high as they weigh up the alternatives. So the questions become, are they prepared to lend to us and what is the premium we’ll be required to pay.
Hard to believe really that we even need to pose the first question but it’s a real one given the state of fear in the markets at the moment.
Turning to our income as we know the dairy boom is well and truly over although it’s outside-chance possible speculators will re-enter that market and manipulate those prices upward but prices there are already high and the speculators appear to be concentrating on other commodities at the moment. These are of course the same speculators who dealt in the dot-bomb and the CDOs from the property market so that gives you an idea of how powerful they are.
Then you have the possibility of the derivatives coming home to roost and that is $700 trillion where the world’s GDP is around $54 trillion but before then we’re likely to see further contraction in the US because the banks are starting to tighten up on credit card debt.
Essentially this is a result of the fact the West has lived on OPM for decades and it’s become a lifestyle not a temporary measure. Now we have to pay the piper and that applies to every single Western nation. Eastern nations are quite liquid because of oil but China is now rapidly closing factories given its exports to previously eager Western markets is drying up…..”
November 11th, 2008 at 10:51 am
This is probably the leadership team they should of had in 99
November 11th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Labour, in appointing Goff and King, at least realise that the electorate has moved to the right. This will help them adjust to the new reality, but i can’t help thinking that the knives will be out for them from the first day – almost certainly led behind the scenes by Helen Clark.
November 11th, 2008 at 11:02 am
The irony is that Labour’s leadership is moving to the right, but the incoming caucus has a very left-wing look about it. As I noted on Sunday, all the “new entrants” have Helen Clark’s personal seal of approval, and strongly represent the more vocal and liberal factions of Labour’s diverse make-up. With the loss of several of the more conservative (and male!) Labour MP’s (Duynhoven, O’Connor, Gallagher, Hereora and Okeroa spring to mind), Goff’s support base has been diluted, and I somehow believe that it won’t be long before the whispering campaigns start and his leadership is undermined by the more liberal faction of caucus which is numerically stronger.
November 11th, 2008 at 11:10 am
DPF, I think we should have a detailed discussion on the monetary policy and fiscal policy of the last 9 years, and get some cold hard facts on the ground.
It is simply not true that the Yanks and their economic crash are responsible for OUR problems or for the problems of much of the rest of the world. Almost EVERY country in the Western world has suffered from easy credit AND house construction/land use restrictions causing a housing bubble; in fact the USA is one of the LEAST affected. NZ just happens to be one of the worst. Even if nothing had happened overseas, we would have had a property market bubble burst and finance companies collapsing all over the place; that process started BEFORE it had started in the USA or anywhere else.
We have had a toxic combination of loose monetary policy and profligate fiscal policy (squandering the legacy of previous responsible economic management).
We have also been comprehensively deceived ever since housing prices were de-linked from inflation statistics. This enabled the monetary managers to have their cake AND eat it, as the low interest rates they set helped “inflation” to be kept “low”, i.e. income expectations kept ahead of the costs of goods and services…….BUT the cost of housing went through the roof and we were truly as badly off as if goods and services had gone up by some shocking amount like 20% per year WITHOUT our incomes going up to compensate.
The reality we have to face now, as I tried to say yesterday, is that house prices and the prices of any other assets and investments that have been inflated beyond what REAL INCOME and the REAL ECONOMY would justify, will have to come back into line with that REAL ECONOMY. It is wishful thinking to think that we can all just keep calm and wait while the REAL ECONOMY “catches up” with the price of houses and other assets. The REAL ECONOMY is SHRINKING, NOT “catching up”.
We are in a frightful hole and our only hope, which I think is a virtually non-existent one, is for some “great communicator” of the Dave Lange class to actually successfully EXPLAIN to all (or at least enough) NZ-ers in a few easy televised lessons, what has gone wrong and what needs to happen. The alternative will be plausible government “tax and spend” prolonging of the depression that is upon us AND the worsening of the “final crash”, if that “final crash” is not already upon us.
The “final crash” MIGHT be followed by free market outcomes emerging phoenix-like from the ashes; but far more likely, given the colossal ignorance and the simmering brute resentments abroad in society, would be a new totalitarian dystopia that MIGHT if our descendants were lucky, come around Gorbachev-like to the need for free market reforms; OR remain in everlasting suicidal and mass-misery-inducing denial like North Korea. The same goes for much of the Western democratic world too.
Oddly enough, if the non-democratic Chinese stick to their canny monetary policy (free of the weakening temptations suffered by democracies) in combination with their “free market” growth rates, they will become the wealthy country that the West’s grandchildren will dream of emigrating to. But it is impossible to say that by way of prediction given the extremely uncertain world we live in.
November 11th, 2008 at 11:13 am
All this fuss over the Labour leader. the shape of the next government. Loving it!!!!!!
greens are quiet aren’t they!!!!
November 11th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Like Goff, and remember he has been around Labour for a long time so he will know what may be in store. The good thing about him becoming leader is that he is a good guy in that camp and was more right of left than many Nats. So his influence will move Labour to the right which means the Nats. will have to go further right and leave their socialist cuddly balnket behind. all to the good I’d suggest. If they don’t Act will clean them out next election.
Won’t that be a lot of fun.
Looking forward to it already.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
I don’t think it very accurate to say that the electorate has moved significantly to the right – sure, the map may be nearly all blue, but blue does not equal right. The actual mandate is as third-way socialist (the election outcome is a success in that respect) as it has ever been (Rodney admits even more-so in some areas).
November 11th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Viking2 – perhaps Labour and National should just swap places on the political spectrum
Slightlyrighty – that is the coup that Helen managed to orchestrate with her leaving – key’s honeymoon period will be, to a large degree, overshadowed by Labour media coverage. Her control lives on…
November 11th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Am I the only one who sees Helen and Michael’s resignation as ‘spitting the dummy’?
So much for the party and the nation?
November 11th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Third way does not automatically mean socialist. The idea had been around for a long time (at least since the 1920′s) and has been used by both the Left and the Right. Many European centre-right parties in the post-war Christian Democrat tradition have always espoused a form of third way economics.
November 11th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Viking2: that’s a very good point about Goff Labour pushing Key National to the right. Sounds a bit like the 80s all over again, with the main parties switching philosophies. (Ooh there’s an accidental pun.)
Given that Key and English may be genuinely more in tune with Goff and King than Hide and Douglas, could we be headed for a grand National/Labour coalition in 2011?
And PhilBest, I agree it’s vital to educate New Zealanders about economics and public policy. In fact, we can’t hope for real change as long as most voters remain in an economic coma.
The question is how. I’m not confident that politicians understand the problem, much less the solution.
So I thought I’d set up a teach tank.
This is my name for a communication company whose sole focus is to find the best mix of words and pictures with which to distill the work of think tanks and political parties into a form that ordinary people can understand and enjoy.
Once we’ve come up with these crystal clear messages, we’d run them in ads in the paper, or in a book, or online. We’d send them to schools, and put them in letterboxes.
Over time, people would see lots of these, and would start to join the dots.
By 2011, the parties would be pitching to a much more literate electorate with a much better grasp of cause and effect.
To make this work, I’d need a team of writers and artists with a flair for boiling things down brilliantly.
Who’s interested?
November 11th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
you need the reasoned/gentle/rational urgings of the likes of redbaiter…
..that guy with the porn-name….’phil best’..?
..kiwi in america seems to be in need of something to do..too..
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 11th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
John Ansell:
Brilliant idea. I’d pitch in but I see two problems:
1. What I’d call “active resistance to engagement”. Not just the “too lazy to be bothered to understand”, whom your plan might reach, but another element – particularly strong amongst a quite large segment of younger people – who have been completely turned off learning by our “education” system, NCEA etc. I need look no further for an example than my own (now adult) kids, brought up in a politically aware and active household, engaged parents, encouraged to learn, but my stepdaughter (smart enough to be my weekend on air producer at 8 when the station was too cheap to pay for one) now at 25 proudly boasts on her online profile “I don’t read books!”. They’re not going to read the leaflet that gets delivered, no matter how it’s simplified.
2. Who’s paying?
And depending on what National end up doing with the EFA, I might also have a third question, as to what status such an organisation would have to have, but that’d be a minor irritant compared to the preceding points.
November 11th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Just goes to show what a negative, bitchy, partisan little critic the Herald editor is, IMHO.
This is the Herald that you lot are forever berating as overtly pro-Labour!
Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach. Those who can’t even teach, try to find fulfillment as critics…
(Paraphrasing a quote in my old music history textbook)
November 11th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
John Ansell
I’m in
I spent the Sunday after the election in a suburban shopping mall shop talking to customers and was amazed at the lack of understanding of the real issues by people of all sides of the political spectrum.